Purpose Driven Church: Misuse of Scripture

Dr. Bob, I would like to look this scripture up, that is being questioned. I use a lot of his books and materials.

I must have missed the original topic, and that is why I do not know the scripture in question.

Thank you
Sherrie

 

I will wait and be willing to jump into the discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]For starters (I've been away from the board for awhile and apologize if someone has already brought this up), check out his usage of Ephesians 1:4. It is early in the book (day 2,3, or 4) and Warren uses "The Message" version of Scripture. Check this out and compare it to any of the word for word translations (NASB, KJV, RSV, etc...) and even with a good thought for thought (like the ESV) version.

 

After my husband and I read this for about the 4th time,we knew there were quite a few things that were not sitting well with us. We have quite a bit highlighted with huge question marks throughout the book. Some of it does contradict scripture....I happen to disagree with the entire philosophy of the book...to change and make church appealling to a typical saddleback Sam,who is unchurched and not interested in the normal church environment. I believe church is for believers to come and worship a Holy God...for the purpose of glorifying God,not making the lost comfortable...this does not mean I do not want the lost to come and that we should not go out a share Christ with others....I,also have a problem with a dumbed down service full of shallow scripture exposition,light carefree feel good songs,and an emphasis on not offending the seeker...things are all at of whack when this takes place.(I know sbcbygrace would disagree,but this is my opinion).


Just my thoughts. I didn't want to bombard you with any details,this is just my overall opinion of his church and the Purpose Driven Church book. By the way,I agree with the purposes of the church...but glorifying God,not the seeker,should be the entire focus.

Molly

 

Ok...I have "The Purpose Driven Church" Book in front of me. What page of this book is in question in this thread?

I am missing a lot here. What exactly am I comparing the scripture to? If I look Eph.1:4 up in the KJV Bible, What will I see that is contrary to what page of this book?

I see no day 1,2,3, thing. Please give me the book page.

Sherrie

[ August 22, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

Molly, a question for you and anyone else that believe "Purpose Driven" is all about entertaining the seeker:

What about those churches that are currently doing nothing to reach the lost? Can any of us really say that people being saved and churches becoming "Great Commission" congregations is a bad thing?

For those that already have an effective outreach/evangelism program going, that's fantastic. But I bet any of us can find something "unscriptural" about any new program out there.

Just to let you know my position, I'm on the fence!

 

Interestingly enough, the first part of the Purpose-Driven life says quite specifically (and I don't have the book in front of me): "It's not about you. It's about God."

 

Let me try and get this straight. The very title of the chapter to which you refer is "You are not an accident." The context is that "God never does anything accidently...he never makes mistakes...he has a reason for everything he creates."

I am missing how Warren is misusing Eph 1.4.

 

And this is the criterion of judgment???

It's unfair to make blanket statements like this without offering support.

Again you are not the final judge.

These words show that you do not truly understand the paradigm. Maybe a 5th reading is in order.

You got two things right: I do disagree and it is your opinion.

Chapter One of the PDL is entitled "It all starts with God." There you have it.

 

Interestingly enough, the first part of the Purpose-Driven life says quite specifically (and I don't have the book in front of me): "It's not about you. It's about God." [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]That is a different book than the Purpose Driven Church,Scott. We have not read that one yet,but we have it.

Molly

 

SBC,

I have given you many scripture references and lines,page numbers of very unbiblical comments made by Warren,etc in previous conversations. You reject all of it to defend and justify a worldy church growth,plus a big business!

I said I was not going into details,mainly because I just don't feel like it today...go back to our other threads on this and see all the details that you want. I just don't have the energy for it today....

Molly

 

Those churches who are doing nothing to share Christ with others need to be equipped through thorough teaching of God's Word on how to evangelize and share the gospel God's way. We need more men handling God's Word accurately,so that we hear the Word,know it,and allow it to change our lives.

The church does not need a new band,louder music,less of God's word and 15 minute sermonettes to make a difference. We need more of scripture,more training(biblical training),more hearts toward God's Word,not bored with it...and then see a genuine flow out of a heart that is full of God to go out and share that Truth with others.

That would be my answer,not Rick Warren's ideas,which are man's ideas,by the way. I think God' Word is pretty clear on how God grows His church...anybody can adopt Rick's ideas and see growth...big deal. It doesn't mean it is God's way.

I see how many can be riding the fence...a lot of what he says is good. I agree with some of it,but to adopt the whole philosophy...I'd say...be discerning and very careful.


Friends,
Molly

 

Thanks for answering in a friendly manner, Molly. I'm not sure you are grasping the intention of "Purpose Driven" though. I personally would never resort to louder music and 15-minute sermonettes.

I don't know of many preachers that can talk for only 15 minutes...certainly not myself!

 

But,sad to say,I think it is happening all around us...1 hour of singing and 15 min. sermonette on the topic of the day. I have seen it,haven't you?

Maybe it is more widespread in my area...?

Molly

 

No what you gave made no sense in relation to what PDC is all about.

Yea that's it!!!

Come on Molly. You should know better by now.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Someone just hit the jackpot.

I have told Molly this repeatedly (based upon her faulty misconceptions about PDC), but for some reason it cannot make it through her Piper-calvinism tendencies. Did I say Piper-Calvinism? Sorry I meant Hyper.

Of course some might argue they are one and the same

Just teasing Molly. I know you mean well but you have yet to grasp what PDC is all about. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but ...

 

As Warren notes, all living things grow and it's natural for any living thing that is healthy to grow (16). So church growth is to be expected whenever a congregation is healthy and biblical.

Warren warns not to copy his methods without considering their context, but instead to see transferrable principles (17). He examines how much of what churches do is biblical and how much is only cultural (30). Attendance, he insists again and again, is NOT the priority (48), that growing churches should not engage in sheep-stealing (50), quality is not compromised by quantity (50), and churches don't need to compromise the gospel to grow (53).

He does recognize that to grow a church needs to be contemporary (55), which was true of the apostolic church as well, and keep in mind that most of the contemporary vs. traditional debate is over purely cultural stuff. Warren considers the primary issues of church health and growth to be the three questions of who is our master, what is our message, and what is our motive. (71). If those are biblical, then what's the beef?

There's nothing wrong with his section pointing out how many stagnant or declining churches are driven by tradition, the pastor's personality, finances, programs, buildings, and events (77-79). He even derides churches that are driven by seekers (79)!

He directs readers to look at Christ's ministry, and His commands, as well as the NT churches, all as our primary examples setting patterns for us to follow today (97). He sets up 5 purposes for the church as following the two greatest commandments and fulfilling the Great Commission (102-106). What is unscriptural about that? He also points out the unbalanced types of churches that overemphasize one thing, such as evangelism, teaching, experience, or justice, and admonishes his readers to follow a balanced biblical model.

I'd like to see several examples where Warren is alleged to be misusing Scripture in The Purpose Driven Church. Please!

Meanwhile, let me note I neither agree with every word he says nor every method he uses. I am not alone at my church in preferring solid doctrinal acappella hymns over fluffy insipid and annoyingly repeated CCM choruses accompanied by a band, although we have a blended format that uses both. One of the reasons our soon-to-be-ex-pastor has been unhappy here is no doubt that we are not a foot-tapping, hand-clapping, "Amen!"-shouting sort of church; I get very, very uneasy whenever anyone raises his hands during prayer or singing, afraid somebody is going to break out in something Pentecostal. Some older person just sat like a log with an acid expression during the music when a lively group from a black church performed for us recently when they joined their pastor visiting (but perked up for his preaching). My own discomfort mainly came from being unfamiliar with the songs, for which neither sheet music nor overheads were provided.

Anyway, I'm pretty traditional, and have been very conservative. Two years ago, I was still pretty sure women have to spend all day with their heads veiled, and it's only about a year I've thought they could speak in church. So this post shouldn't be read as coming from a liberal or even a dance-in-the-aisles charismatic kind of guy. I'm neither. But I do wonder if Rick Warren's book has been mischaracterized here.

 

Interesting thought. All living things also grow old and die.

 

The point is that arguing his point from nature is pointless. It is natural for things to grow. It is natural for things to die. His conclusion - So church growth is to be expected whenever a congregation is healthy and biblical - may or may not be true, but it does not follow from something he sees in nature. Scripture is the criterion, not nature.

 

The point is that Paul arguing his point from nature is pointless. It is natural for women to have long hair. Is it natural for men to have short hair? His conclusion that women should be veiled and men should not may or may not be true, but it does not follow from something he sees in nature.

Or such seems your reasoning. Paul made arguments from nature a lot.

Besides, Warren's analogy is correct: healthy churches grow, unhealthy churches stagnate or die, or are killed by persecution.